Channel-Vocoder-Centric Modelling of Cochlear Implants: Strengths and Limitations

Kong, Fanting; Mo, Yefei; Zhou, Huali; Meng, Qinglin; Zheng, Nengheng

doi:10.1007/978-981-19-4703-2_11

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because of the similarities in temporal envelope extraction, these kinds of vocoded sounds were assumed to be transmitting similar information as CI devices. This is a widely accepted assumption and consistent performance trends between these two hearing modes were often reported [8], [17]. The advantage of these conventional continuous carrier vocoders is obvious: They can be used to predict the overall trend of intelligibility with CIs.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…However, there are significant simulation-to-real disparities in absolute perceptual test results [8], [18]. Some degradation methods with good physiological hypotheses can be used to decrease the disparities.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The bins between k = 2 and 63 were combined into 22 bands, i.e., bin numbers of low-to-high bands are 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,7,8]. The power of each band is calculated by:…”

Section: Algorithms and Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To meet these needs, simulators of sensory (e.g., auditory and visual) impairments and prostheses have been proposed [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Prostheses for different sensory domains (e.g., vision and audition) are designed to mimic healthy neural pathways, as are their simulators.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparable Encoding, Comparable Perceptual Pattern: Acoustic and Electric Hearing

Kong

Zhou

et al. 2023

IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perception with electric neuroprostheses is sometimes expected to be simulated using properly designed physical stimuli. Here, we examined a new acoustic vocoder model for electric hearing with cochlear implants (CIs) and hypothesized that comparable speech encoding can lead to comparable perceptual patterns for CI and normal hearing (NH) listeners. Speech signals were encoded using FFT-based signal processing stages including band-pass filtering, temporal envelope extraction, maxima selection, and amplitude compression and quantization. These stages were specifically implemented in the same manner by an Advanced Combination Encoder (ACE) strategy in CI processors and Gaussian-enveloped Tones (GET) or Noise (GEN) vocoders for NH. Adaptive speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in noise were measured using four Mandarin sentence corpora. Initial consonant (11 monosyllables) and final vowel (20 monosyllables) recognition were also measured. NaÏve NH listeners were tested using vocoded speech with the proposed GET/GEN vocoders as well as conventional vocoders (controls).Experienced CI listeners were tested using their daily-used processors. Results showed that: 1) there was a significant training effect on GET vocoded speech perception; 2) the GEN vocoded scores (SRTs with four corpora and consonant and vowel recognition scores) as well as the phoneme-level confusion pattern matched with the CI scores better than controls. The findings suggest that the same signal encoding implementations may lead to similar perceptual patterns simultaneously in multiple perception Manuscript

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The bins between k = 2 and 63 were combined into 22 bands, i.e., bin numbers of low-to-high bands are 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,7,8]. The power of each band is calculated by:…”

Section: Algorithms and Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparable Encoding, Comparable Perceptual Pattern: Acoustic and Electric Hearing

Kong

Zhou

et al. 2023

IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The vocoder simulations also allow the investigation of electrode parameters without the need for surgical alterations. However, vocoders are not perfect acoustic models of CI [ 55 , 56 ] and the generalization of the current study findings to real-life bilateral CI listening must be done with prudence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of interaural electrode insertion depth difference and independent band selection on sentence recognition in noise and spatial release from masking in simulated bilateral cochlear implant listening

Fathima

Bhat

Pitchaimuthu

2023

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Inter-aural insertion depth difference (IEDD) in bilateral cochlear implant (BiCI) with continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) processing is known to reduce the recognition of speech in noise and spatial release from masking (SRM). However, the independent channel selection in the ‘n-of-m’ sound coding strategy might have a different effect on speech recognition and SRM when compared to the effects of IEDD in CIS-based findings. This study aimed to investigate the effect of bilateral ‘n-of-m’ processing strategy and interaural electrode insertion depth difference on speech recognition in noise and SRM under conditions that simulated bilateral cochlear implant listening. Methods Five young adults with normal hearing sensitivity participated in the study. The target sentences were spatially filtered to originate from 0° and the masker was spatially filtered at 0°, 15°, 37.5°, and 90° using the Oldenburg head-related transfer function database for behind the ear microphone. A 22-channel sine wave vocoder processing based on ‘n-of-m’ processing was applied to the spatialized target-masker mixture, in each ear. The perceptual experiment involved a test of speech recognition in noise under one co-located condition (target and masker at 0°) and three spatially separated conditions (target at 0°, masker at 15°, 37.5°, or 90° to the right ear). Results The results were analyzed using a three-way repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA). The effect of interaural insertion depth difference (F (2,8) = 3.145, p = 0.098, ɳ2 = 0.007) and spatial separation between target and masker (F (3,12) = 1.239, p = 0.339, ɳ2 = 0.004) on speech recognition in noise was not significant. Conclusions Speech recognition in noise and SRM were not affected by IEDD ≤ 3 mm. Bilateral ‘n-of-m’ processing resulted in reduced speech recognition in noise and SRM.

show abstract

Pulsatile Gaussian-Enveloped Tones (GET) for cochlear-implant simulation

Meng

Zhou

et al. 2023

Applied Acoustics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Channel-Vocoder-Centric Modelling of Cochlear Implants: Strengths and Limitations

Cited by 3 publications

References 50 publications

Comparable Encoding, Comparable Perceptual Pattern: Acoustic and Electric Hearing

Comparable Encoding, Comparable Perceptual Pattern: Acoustic and Electric Hearing

Effect of interaural electrode insertion depth difference and independent band selection on sentence recognition in noise and spatial release from masking in simulated bilateral cochlear implant listening

Pulsatile Gaussian-Enveloped Tones (GET) for cochlear-implant simulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About